Fly Bhoy – good question, shame it’s not been answered.
The fact of the matter is that the Pension Fund is an investment fund, based on trading stocks and bonds. NATS pay in X% and the staff (who are also shareholders and fund members) pay in Y%.
When the stocks and bonds performed well, the investment grew. So NATS decided to make it’s contributions X-??%, whilst the staff had to continue to pay the same (Y%) percentage as they always have.
On other words, when our money (our investment) produced a financial gain, NATS took advantage of this by reducing its contributions; meanwhile the staff did not receive any benefit from the fact the stocks and bonds were in profit.
Now that the stocks and bonds are in decline, NATS are asking the staff to make a huge contribution to bring it back into line, whilst trying to minimise the amount it, NATS, has to pay. Is that entirely fair??
Also, as you stated in your question, why did NATS not increase its contributions to the proper level when this problem was first noticed?
Secondly, SMART pensions. These have been around for years. Why has it taken until now for NATS to look into them? (A case of incompetence, indifference or something more along the lines of wanting to make the scheme unviable so it can be closed)?
Why are NATS even waiting for the resolution of this negotiation before implementing SMART pensions?
If SMART pensions had been introduced years ago, and the contribution rates had been brought up to the correct levels when an issue was first spotted, we would be in a healthier position today.
The fund would probably still need help, but not to the tune of £60Million a year that the (management) are quoting.
Since Barron has joined the company, I have felt that the level of trust has eroded. It is almost conceivable to my mind that NATS have let things run this far (i.e. not used SMART pensions etc), because it suited them to run the pension fund down, as they want to close it.
Anyone, even the ‘YES’ voters can see that a company that has closed its final salary pension scheme (and/or reduced the benefits to existing members), reduces its costs. Now it obviously is good business sense for a company that is out to make profits, but why should a ‘not for profit’ company have to do this if the scheme is actually, in reality, still viable (as ours is)?
Or is closing the pension fund a way of making NSL etc more attractive to potential buyers?
Either way, we should have implemented SMART pensions years ago. We should have beefed up the NATS contribution as soon as doubts about the viability of the fund were raised.
And we should never, ever, aim to run the fund at just 100% - where is the flex in that for days when investments turn sour? It is not prudent financial management to run things so tight when they rely on the performance of the stock market etc.
If operational staff where so incompetent or slack, they would be sacked by now… why are our ‘financial’ experts still in situ?
Finally, to those who are worried (i.e. believe the scaremongering) about NATS going to the wall – for the sake of £60 million do you honestly think NATS (a company upon which the UK economy is utterly dependant on) will be allowed to fail by a government that has ploughed £billions into banks etc?
OF COURSE IT WON’T!!